Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello All, I'm a classical musician with some technical audio experience,
but not a real "engineer". I'm recording in a beautiful sounding recital hall of about 200 seats. The hall already had a pair of Neumann KM140s hanging from the ceiling. I'm recording solo piano (Steinway grand), solo instruments, duets, trios, quartets and so on. ABout the largest thing I get is a baroque string ensemble (about 25-30 people) plus harpsichord. THe problem is, I feel like the sound is a little cold and sterile. Part of this is I'm not getting much ambient signal (and this is a great sounding room, so I really feel it's an important part of the experience). The ceiling is HIGH, and we can't even get to the receptacles without building scaffolding (which has never happened in the 15 years this building has been around). The mics hang in an XY pair about 15 feet above the front center stage, maybe about a foot back from the very front edge of the stage. The cable lengths, and fixed position in the receptacles prevents my moving them too much, but I have been able to pull them back so now they hang about 2 feet past the edge of the stage (into the audience) and are now maybe a foot higher (if that - it's just whatever the angle difference caused). That's added a little ambience, but of course it's also lessened the low frequency response a bit. I've also pulled another pair of the same mics, tried an ORTF like configuration (as best I could with the mount I have) and put them in the third row, up on an Atlas stand - about 8 feet in the air - I was figuring the greater horizontal distance from the sound source would make up for the lower height than my hanging mics. This is the best stereo spread and warmth (ambience) I've gotten, but it seems like sense of depth is not there, and the low frequencies are still not as good as the closest position. Furthermore, I have to set it up and tear it down for every event, which is not practical, and I have to block of audience seats so it's not the best solution (and it's more obtrusive visually) When another engineer was there from a major broadcaster, he used omnis about 3 feet apart, and about a foot or so from the front edge of the stage (the musicians are usually about 3 feet from the front edge of the stage on average, but this varies depending on the group). He said omnis were the way to go. But now I'm reading that omnis need to be a spaced pair, and most people are saying for orchestra, and talking 12 feet apart (which I've actually got the receptacles in the ceiling for this, but we can't get to them easily!). And, of course, I'd need any mounts to be coming down from the ceiling to be unobtrusive. Additionally, I've read that omnis, if close together (like on my current hanging setup), need a baffle, like a Jecklin or Schneider disc. Both of these seem really reasonable in terms of how they mimic the spacing of the human head (as does ORTF - but I'm reading that's only for directional mics). So what should I be doing? SHould I stick with my cardioids and try an ORTF spacing instead of the XY coincident position they're in now (assuming I can't change the position of the ceiling hanging setup). Or should I try and use omnis in either a spaced pair or baffle system? The way they are now is just not cutting it, and that's the reason I'm leaning toward the omnis - I've been reading they offer a better alternative for distant miking, better low frequency response, good stereo spread, and better pickup of room ambience. But I guess what I'm asking is, given the setup as I'm describing, what would be the best way to put a permanent mic setup in this room???? TIA Steve |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
For what it's worth, I have found ORTF to give a better sense of
spaciousness and ambiance than XY. If you play with the angle and spacing a little, you might get exactly what you want. By increasing the angle between the mics, you will pick up a bit more ambiance; by increasing the space between the capsules, you will diffuse the phase relationship between the mics a bit, giving a feeling of spaciousness (I will no doubt get flamed for that statement, but done properly, it can give a very pleasant effect without sacrificing the clarity of the image). A word of caution, however, too great a space and/or angle and you will start to lose the fusion of the image in the center - a big concern for small ensembles and soloists. This may be no small feat, unless you have an assistant to stand on the ladder and tweak the mic's while you listen in another room. Or just get a 15 foot stand, and throw that in the 3rd row with an ORTF pair. :-) |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Latham wrote:
THe problem is, I feel like the sound is a little cold and sterile. Part of this is I'm not getting much ambient signal (and this is a great sounding room, so I really feel it's an important part of the experience). The ceiling is HIGH, and we can't even get to the receptacles without building scaffolding (which has never happened in the 15 years this building has been around). The mics hang in an XY pair about 15 feet above the front center stage, maybe about a foot back from the very front edge of the stage. The cable lengths, and fixed position in the receptacles prevents my moving them too much, but I have been able to pull them back so now they hang about 2 feet past the edge of the stage (into the audience) and are now maybe a foot higher (if that - it's just whatever the angle difference caused). That's added a little ambience, but of course it's also lessened the low frequency response a bit. The low frequency difference might well be due to the change in height, but maybe not. Pulling it back is what you need to do in order to get more ambience. You could also try a microphone with a slightly wider pattern if you're stuck up that close. I've also pulled another pair of the same mics, tried an ORTF like configuration (as best I could with the mount I have) and put them in the third row, up on an Atlas stand - about 8 feet in the air - I was figuring the greater horizontal distance from the sound source would make up for the lower height than my hanging mics. This is the best stereo spread and warmth (ambience) I've gotten, but it seems like sense of depth is not there, and the low frequencies are still not as good as the closest position. Furthermore, I have to set it up and tear it down for every event, which is not practical, and I have to block of audience seats so it's not the best solution (and it's more obtrusive visually) In this case, the height of the microphone is so radically different that it's hard to worry about any other differences. You probably want a placement that is farther back than the original hung pair, but at a similar height. When another engineer was there from a major broadcaster, he used omnis about 3 feet apart, and about a foot or so from the front edge of the stage (the musicians are usually about 3 feet from the front edge of the stage on average, but this varies depending on the group). He said omnis were the way to go. If you do A-B pair, you get weird imaging. Very odd sense of depth. Some people like this, some people don't, but it's not natural. The close spacing he is using will tend to collapse things and give you a little better mono compatibility than a widely-spaced triad. But now I'm reading that omnis need to be a spaced pair, and most people are saying for orchestra, and talking 12 feet apart (which I've actually got the receptacles in the ceiling for this, but we can't get to them easily!). And, of course, I'd need any mounts to be coming down from the ceiling to be unobtrusive. Additionally, I've read that omnis, if close together (like on my current hanging setup), need a baffle, like a Jecklin or Schneider disc. Both of these seem really reasonable in terms of how they mimic the spacing of the human head (as does ORTF - but I'm reading that's only for directional mics). 12 feet apart isn't unusual. Some folks (and the old Mercury recordings are a fine example) use three omnis over the orchestra spaced very wide, with the center one panned to center. I find this has very weird imaging personally, but again some people like it. And I can live with it because the tonality is good and that's more important to me than image. Another possibility is to use a Jecklin disc or other baffled omni pair. This allows you to get good ambience with very close placement. So what should I be doing? SHould I stick with my cardioids and try an ORTF spacing instead of the XY coincident position they're in now (assuming I can't change the position of the ceiling hanging setup). Or should I try and use omnis in either a spaced pair or baffle system? The ORTF spacing is definitely a good idea, and it will give you more depth but it won't give you any more actual ambience. If your problem is that you are too close, you can try using wider cardioids up there. You can also try omnis in several configurations if you have some around. Also, you can try using a very tall stand and putting your existing cardioid pair at the same height as it is when hung, but farther from the orchestra. You can move it around a little bit and get a sense of how things change. It helps to have an assistant who can move the stand around during a rehearsal while you listen over speakers in the booth. Make sure you have a real booth with speakers, even if it's actually a commandeered dressing room or broom closet. The way they are now is just not cutting it, and that's the reason I'm leaning toward the omnis - I've been reading they offer a better alternative for distant miking, better low frequency response, good stereo spread, and better pickup of room ambience. If you have omni capsules for the KM100s, you should definitely try them just to get a sense of what they do. Record some rehearsals and get a sense of how the different configurations work in that particular hall. I don't recall the KM100s having wide-cardioid capsules available... I know the Schoeps systems have a bunch of cardioid patterns, but I think with the KM100 you are stuck with that one cardioid configuration. But I guess what I'm asking is, given the setup as I'm describing, what would be the best way to put a permanent mic setup in this room???? Play around with some temporary systems on tall stands. Find out what is right FOR THAT ROOM and then build a permanent install to put the mikes there. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Latham wrote:
When another engineer was there from a major broadcaster, he used omnis about 3 feet apart, and about a foot or so from the front edge of the stage (the musicians are usually about 3 feet from the front edge of the stage on average, but this varies depending on the group). He said omnis were the way to go. When using only a single pair of omnis the intercapsule distance range to use is indeed between 1.5 and 3 feet, and 2 feet is a good starting point. The sonic price is that it is very difficult to maintain a good stereo imaging of the parts of the orchestra that are distant. It is also generally relevant to avoid getting them to high above the orchestra. Generally for all stereo pair recordings ambience amount is adjusted by mic stand height and stereo spread by mic stand to sonic object distance. But now I'm reading that omnis need to be a spaced pair, and most people are saying for orchestra, and talking 12 feet apart For a pair, that is nonsense, it will create dual mono. With a center mic it is a different tale. So what should I be doing? SHould I stick with my cardioids and try an ORTF spacing instead of the XY coincident position they're in now Probably yes. You may need to make two changes to the rigging: make it be height adjustable and you may need a third wire so that you can adjust the horisontal distance within say a 4 to 6 feet range. The way they are now is just not cutting it, and that's the reason I'm leaning toward the omnis You can get excellent results with omni's. But it is a different way of recording and you don't just put an omni pair where the cardioid pair was and press record. But I guess what I'm asking is, given the setup as I'm describing, what would be the best way to put a permanent mic setup in this room???? Supplement with an omnidirectional omni pair no further away than 6 feet behind the cardioids, 2 feet spacing, aimed upwards, record 4 tracks. 4006's with nosecones constitute omnidirectional omni microphones from 10 Hz to about 16 kHz, with a slight upper midrange (relative) dip being the sonic cost of true omnidirectionality. Use them with black grid if the slight response unlinearity worries you, pointing the mics upwards reduces the sonic cost of the on axis treble boost that black grid by design causes. YMMV - suggestions are only tentative, all kinds of real world concerns will matter. Steve Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve Latham" wrote in message ... Hello All, I'm a classical musician with some technical audio experience, but not a real "engineer". I'm recording in a beautiful sounding recital hall of about 200 seats. The hall already had a pair of Neumann KM140s hanging from the ceiling. I'm recording solo piano (Steinway grand), solo instruments, duets, trios, quartets and so on. ABout the largest thing I get is a baroque string ensemble (about 25-30 people) plus harpsichord. THe problem is, I feel like the sound is a little cold and sterile. Part of this is I'm not getting much ambient signal (and this is a great sounding room, so I really feel it's an important part of the experience). The ceiling is HIGH, and we can't even get to the receptacles without building scaffolding (which has never happened in the 15 years this building has been around). The mics hang in an XY pair about 15 feet above the front center stage, maybe about a foot back from the very front edge of the stage. The cable lengths, and fixed position in the receptacles prevents my moving them too much, but I have been able to pull them back so now they hang about 2 feet past the edge of the stage (into the audience) and are now maybe a foot higher (if that - it's just whatever the angle difference caused). That's added a little ambience, but of course it's also lessened the low frequency response a bit. I've also pulled another pair of the same mics, tried an ORTF like configuration (as best I could with the mount I have) and put them in the third row, up on an Atlas stand - about 8 feet in the air - I was figuring the greater horizontal distance from the sound source would make up for the lower height than my hanging mics. This is the best stereo spread and warmth (ambience) I've gotten, but it seems like sense of depth is not there, and the low frequencies are still not as good as the closest position. Furthermore, I have to set it up and tear it down for every event, which is not practical, and I have to block of audience seats so it's not the best solution (and it's more obtrusive visually) When another engineer was there from a major broadcaster, he used omnis about 3 feet apart, and about a foot or so from the front edge of the stage (the musicians are usually about 3 feet from the front edge of the stage on average, but this varies depending on the group). He said omnis were the way to go. But now I'm reading that omnis need to be a spaced pair, and most people are saying for orchestra, and talking 12 feet apart (which I've actually got the receptacles in the ceiling for this, but we can't get to them easily!). And, of course, I'd need any mounts to be coming down from the ceiling to be unobtrusive. Additionally, I've read that omnis, if close together (like on my current hanging setup), need a baffle, like a Jecklin or Schneider disc. Both of these seem really reasonable in terms of how they mimic the spacing of the human head (as does ORTF - but I'm reading that's only for directional mics). So what should I be doing? SHould I stick with my cardioids and try an ORTF spacing instead of the XY coincident position they're in now (assuming I can't change the position of the ceiling hanging setup). Or should I try and use omnis in either a spaced pair or baffle system? The way they are now is just not cutting it, and that's the reason I'm leaning toward the omnis - I've been reading they offer a better alternative for distant miking, better low frequency response, good stereo spread, and better pickup of room ambience. But I guess what I'm asking is, given the setup as I'm describing, what would be the best way to put a permanent mic setup in this room???? You've gotten some very good advice from Scott and locosoundman. It squares with the things I would have recommended. I'd definitely play with the omni's...if the acoustics are good (and you say they are) then three spaced omni's six-eight feet apart might do it. They pick up even ambiance and are not rolled off in the bass like either cardioids or figure-eights. There is no substitute for experimentation. Every room has its sweet spots, and every configuration its strengths and weaknesses. Finding the right combination can take days...but once its found, you can keep it forever. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks everyone!
Just to refine a bit: You're suggesting that 12 feet apart without a third center mic for omnis is no good, which is what my gut instinct was telling me. It seems like my research is telling me that if you use an A-B pair (and I'm trying to also keep things simple so blending a third mic in is not practical) and space them 2 feet (give or take) apart, you can toy with the placement and get what I'm after. But, when they're close, there needs to be a baffle between them. How close is close? Schneider setups and ORTF both use the average human head dimensions for spacing the capsules, so, Dumb question: can you put omnis on and ORTF mount (well, I know you can, but is it usable)? If you can, do you need a baffle? If you can't what's the minimum distance apart they should be without a baffle (I got between 20 and 80 cm from Neumann, but we hadn't discussed if that was with or without baffle). Thanks again, and looking forward to your responses, Steve BTW nsemble is what we call them in the South, pronounced, "eyn - sem - blee" :-) |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
You're suggesting that 12 feet apart without a third center mic for omnis is
no good, which is what my gut instinct was telling me. Yeah. Widely spaced omnis give an exaggerrated stereo spread with no real center imaging. It's a very confused sounding sense of stereo. Scott Fraser |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Also, be aware that there is no one-size-fits-all approach & you WILL need to
change your setup to accomodate different instrument combinations in that space. Scott Fraser |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
ScotFraser wrote:
You're suggesting that 12 feet apart without a third center mic for omnis is no good, which is what my gut instinct was telling me. Yeah. Widely spaced omnis give an exaggerrated stereo spread with no real center imaging. It's a very confused sounding sense of stereo. BUT the tonality is good, and even though the stereo image is pretty weird, it can work in some halls with acoustical problems in the rear. Get the Mercury Living Presence CD of the Osipov State Balalaika Orchestra to get a sense of how this sounds. It's a hell of a good band, too. If that's too weird, try the recording of Petrouchka. All of these were done with a spaced triad of large omni mikes suspended above the group (and sometimes forward). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
BUT the tonality is good, and even though the stereo image is pretty weird,
it can work in some halls with acoustical problems in the rear. Which makes it a good starting place for a hybrid approach; spaced omni pair with XY or ORTF center pair, or even center omni added. All of these were done with a spaced triad of large omni mikes suspended above the group (and sometimes forward). Well, three omnis is whole other ball game than a spaced pair. To me it's sort like one third the way toward spot miking everything. Scott Fraser |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
ScotFraser wrote:
BUT the tonality is good, and even though the stereo image is pretty weird, it can work in some halls with acoustical problems in the rear. Which makes it a good starting place for a hybrid approach; spaced omni pair with XY or ORTF center pair, or even center omni added. See, I never liked this... I always feel like something unpleasant is going on when I bring the spaced pair up. But if you can keep the orchestra out of the spaced pair, you might have something. All of these were done with a spaced triad of large omni mikes suspended above the group (and sometimes forward). Well, three omnis is whole other ball game than a spaced pair. To me it's sort like one third the way toward spot miking everything. You get wide amplitude differences between channels, and the phase differences are so great (and so unpredictable) that they don't really contribute all that much to real imaging effects, I think. Lots of people like it, as witnessed by the insane valuation on old Mercury and Everest LPs. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Latham wrote:
Thanks everyone! Just to refine a bit: You're suggesting that 12 feet apart without a third center mic for omnis is no good, which is what my gut instinct was telling me. It seems like my research is telling me that if you use an A-B pair (and I'm trying to also keep things simple so blending a third mic in is not practical) and space them 2 feet (give or take) apart, you can toy with the placement and get what I'm after. Yes. But, when they're close, there needs to be a baffle between them. How close is close? 1 foot or less. You have to see this in the context of the depth of stage, the deeper the stage, the wider they need to be apart to get good stereo separation for the rearmost sources. You will have to balance that need with the need for modest separation to get proper center definition for the front most sources and to avoid them jumping left-to-right or vice versa with no "inbetween". This can be a major concern with things like flute, violin and viola and indeed with say clarinet or oboe when playing solo up front. Do be aware that these concerns apply for all stereo mic setups, except perhaps for one-point X-Y which has strict "angular imaging". Speaking of one-point, then a one-point MS-stereo setup might prove very useful, I'll leave additional ascii on those setups to those that use them. Schneider setups and ORTF both use the average human head dimensions for spacing the capsules, Yes, but what it really is about is the amount of decorrelation to obtain between the channels. If you want to dive deep into this there is the "Stereophonic Zoom" AES paper from 1983 and the recent DPA report of their 5+1 experiments in Bannf. Steve As usual: ymmmv .... Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScotFraser wrote: You're suggesting that 12 feet apart without a third center mic for omnis is no good, which is what my gut instinct was telling me. Yeah. Widely spaced omnis give an exaggerrated stereo spread with no real center imaging. It's a very confused sounding sense of stereo. BUT the tonality is good, and even though the stereo image is pretty weird, it can work in some halls with acoustical problems in the rear. Get the Mercury Living Presence CD of the Osipov State Balalaika Orchestra to get a sense of how this sounds. It's a hell of a good band, too. If that's too weird, try the recording of Petrouchka. All of these were done with a spaced triad of large omni mikes suspended above the group (and sometimes forward). I keep hearing about 3.0 SACDs made from the original 3-track masters. Rumor has it that playing them back on an LCR array sounds far better than the stereo mix... |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In reply to message
posted by "Steve Latham" : I think there are likely two problems with your permanent rig: its position so close to the stage front, and the use of an XY configuration. The fact that you get a nice sound in row 3 is consistant with my experience recording chamber music in halls of similar size. Now that you know where the sweet spot is for direct/reverberant balance, you shouldn't try to fight it. Put the mics there and then figure out how to get the image width (and depth) and the tonal balance that you desire. A coincident pair will not produce a satisfactory spread from this position, so ORTF was a good place to start. But you can control the image width by varying both the spacing and the angle between the mics. Moreover, by trading one against the other, you can control the central "focus" of the sound stage. The Michael Williams "Stereophonic Zoom" monograph is essential reading in understanding how to do this. Once you've optimized the above, you should experiment with changing the array height. See the white paper on Bob Katz's Digital Domain web site for a diagram of how this affects the sense of depth in a recording. But be aware that changing the array height can also change the tonality dramatically, either for better or for worse. It's going to be a compromise, and the best advice is to have an assistant move the stand up and down while you listen in the control room. Unfortunately, the optimal choices will vary from ensemble to ensemble. So when you design your "permanent" rig, pay particular attention to making it easy change. You want an adjustable stereo bar (the AEA one is lovely, but pricey), and you want to be able to raise and lower the array easily, both for sonic reasons, and to readjust the stereo bar. Ron Streicher has a lot of great rigging ideas which he's taught in AES convention talks and at Aspen. (I love the modified bait-casting reels!) I'm not certain if these are shown anywhere in print, but it might be worth a phone call or email, once you have a basic idea of what you need to accomplish. Best of luck, David L. Rick Seventh String Recording ("reply to" goes nowhere; use davidDOTrickAThachDOTcom) |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
See, I never liked this... I always feel like something unpleasant is going
on when I bring the spaced pair up. Overly wide image, or too much random phase? Scott Fraser |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
ScotFraser wrote:
See, I never liked this... I always feel like something unpleasant is going on when I bring the spaced pair up. Overly wide image, or too much random phase? It's not just that things get wider, the tone of the room changes and I guess things start to smear (not in position, but in tone). Probably that's a random phase issue. This doesn't seem to bother many other folks. The fellow doing the NPR broadcasts down in Norfolk is very gung-ho about this method and is very happy with it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio |